Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06.13.89 Planning Packet1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. 2. APPROVE MINUTES MAY 9, 1989 3. PUBLIC HEARING 7:00 P.M. CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST WHITE FUNERAL HOME White Funeral Home needs a 30 by 30 square foot addition to its existing facility on Third Street. The property is zoned R -2 in which funeral homes are listed as conditional uses. Section 10- 8- 5(c)3. says that proposed uses shall be sited, oriented and landscaped to produce harmonious relation- ship of buildings and grounds to adjacent buildings and grounds. Section 10 -6 -14: Landscaping identifies the ways in which landscape plans shall be submitted without actually identifying what is required for a conditional use. For example, the landscaping plans in the B -1, B -2, B -3 and I -1 District are clearly detailed. Residential districts, on the other hand, only require landscaping within the front yard. This section also deals with landscaping requirements for non- residential zoning districts when they adjoin residential construction. White Funeral Home does not fall into any of these categories and it is, therefore, difficult to determine what type of landscaping will produce a harmonious relationship. RECOMMENDATION AGENDA REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR JUNE 13, 1989 Approve the requested addition subject to some recognition of the adjoining residential land use. 4. PUBLIC HEARING 7:10 P.M. CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST GENERAL SERVICES DEPT. The City's General Services Department needs additional storage space and has asked to build a separate storage building within the existing fenced area at the City maintenance shop. The property is zoned R -2 which lists public buildings as conditional uses. The ordinance provides that only one principal use is allowed on each lot which in this situation would be the maintenance shop itself. Therefore, the building requested is an accessory structure, but larger than the 1,000 square feet that is listed. Based on this information, it appears that the building is not permitted unless a variance were to be granted. The uses which adjoin the shop include three single family dwellings and one unattractive "quonset" type building used by the School District for equipment storage. The building requested by the City will clearly be more attractive than the quonset, but is very likely to impact unfavorably on the adjoining residential lot to the south. The City put a limit on the size of accessory structures to avoid large sheds within residential neighborhoods. The maintenance shop is at the edge of the neighborhood and has been in existence for many years. Even so, it would be ironic if the City were to grant a variance to itself to build a structure in a residential neighborhood that likely would not be granted to a resident of Farmington. RECOMMENDATION Deny the request on the basis that the structure is too large for any residential neighborhood. 5. PUBLIC HEARING 7:20 P.M. VARIANCE REQUEST TIMOTHY AND CYNTHIA BOLES Timothy and Cynthia Boles live at the corner of 182nd Street and County Road 31. They would like permission to build an 8 foot high privacy fence along their east property line. Eight foot fences are permitted behind setback lines on residential lots or at the property lines on business and industrial lots. The Boles believe that an 8 foot fence is necessary to help cut down traffic noise but if built at the setback line, would deprive them the use of much of their property. The standards for a variance are listed in Section 10- 8 -6(C) of the City Code and all must be met. It is clear that there is an undue hardship here because of the traffic along County Road 31, but it is less clear that this is a unique circumstance. It appears that the Boles have a problem shared by everyone with frontage along an arterial street. A question for the Planning Commission to evaluate is what type of environment will be created if all lots along arterial streets were to have similar fence construction. While a landscaping solution may take longer to achieve, it would likely be more effective as a noise barrier between this house and County Road 31. RECOMMENDATION Deny the request since it fails to meet all of the criteria listed in 10- 8 -6(C). 6. PUBLIC HEARING 7:30 P.M. CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST IRIS BRIESACHER This request came about when the City billing department discovered that the property was listed as a single family dwelling when indeed it includes two separate units. When notified, the owner applied for an accessory apartment conditional use. The structure was originally built as a two family unit in 1966. It meets the requirements of Section 10 -6 -3, particularly with respect to lot size, the size of the accessory unit and neighborhood density. The owner was not asked to produce a site plan, since the use has been continuously occupied as a two family dwelling since 1966. RECOMMENDATION Approve the conditional use request based upon compliance with Section 10 -6 -3 of the City Code. 7. PUBLIC HEARING 7:30 P.M. CONDITIONAL USE AND VARIANCE EMC DEVELOPMENT Elderly and handicapped housing is a conditional use in the B -2 General Business District. The concept plan shows a 42 unit "senior" housing structure on Lots 10 -13, Block 17, Original Town of Farmington. The density of the site is acceptable, but there will be fewer off street parking stalls than called for in Section 10 -6 -8 of the City Code. Neither of the existing elderly apartment buildings meet the code and no problems have been encountered. Staff would suggest an amendment reducing the required parking stalls for this type of unit except that there are likely to be few requests for similar structures. The developer has been negotiating with the HRA for the proper configuration of the alley situated on the north side of the site. The HRA does not wish to have the alley separate this site from the railroad and the City staff does not wish to bring it to Elm Street adjoining the Hardee's drive out. A compromise acceptable to the developer was worked out so that the alley will empty into the parking lot and continue through to Oak Street. The staff is satisfied as long as the developer constructs the traveled surface of the parking lot to a standard that will accommodate the trash collection. The developer is willing to grant an easement across the lot to the City for whatever needs it may have. The developer has not yet produced a site plan in sufficient detail for proper evaluation, but the staff is satisfied that this can be accomplished. RECOMMENDATION Approve the conditional use subject to the preparation of a detailed site plan as specified in Section 10 -6 -14 of the City Code. Approve the requested variance for thirteen fewer parking spaces than required by code on the basis that elderly residents will operate fewer automobiles than the general population of Farmington. 8. DISCUSSION REZONING BLOCK 18 FROM B -3 TO R -3 EMC DEVELOPMENT Lots 1 -6 and 7 -10 of Block 18 of the Original Town of Farmington are currently being acquired by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority for market rate townhouse construction. This will require changes in the City Comprehensive Plan, as well as the Downtown Plan recently adopted by the HRA, since both plans show the site as being suitable for heavy business. The changes can be accomplished readily since the City Comprehensive Plan is currently being reworked and the Downtown Plan has not yet been published. The compelling reasons for such a change is the current demand for housing close to the business district and the support such housing can provide for business uses in the downtown. The developer is proposing 24 townhouse units with an interior or private street system and an abundance of useable open space. The development will be phased to provide relocation space for the housing that is currently on site. The schematic plan is acceptable to staff but a detailed site plan will need to be prepared before the property is rezoned. RECOMMENDATION Forward a recommendation to the City Council that the above described property should be rezoned from B -3 to R -3 provided that the developer completes a detailed site plan which is acceptable to the City staff and that the staff prepare appropriate changes in both the City and the Downtown Comprehensive Plans. 9. PUBLIC HEARING 7:50 P.M. VARIANCE FOR NEIGHBORHOOD SIGN Jon Malinski asked for and received a variance from the sign ordinance which permitted him to construct a neighborhood sign just off the utility and drainage easement at the intersection of Akin Road and 193rd Street. By means of misunderstanding and /or miscommunication, the sign was built within the Akin Road right of way. Mr. Malinski has said that his contractor believes this sign can be pushed in place out of the right of way but to get to the edge of the utility easement would assure that it would break up. Section 4 -3 -9 of the City Code indicates that variances are possible in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship. The question in this instance relates to undue hardship. Is the City obligated to go to the expense of vacating an existing easement and creating a substitute that will avoid the sign after the developer fails to understand the criteria specifically created for him? The paperwork alone begins to compare with the cost of reconstruction. RECOMMENDATION Deny the request on the basis that there is no hardship. 10. DISCUSSION DAKOTA COUNTY ESTATES PUD The attached memorandum from Larry Thompson indicates the type of discussion expected from the City Council. I have discussed the issue with Jack Benedict and he has no interest in changing the PUD at the present time. I will bring copies of the PUD to the meeting for your consideration. 11. DISCUSSION RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY CODE SIGNS RECOMMENDATION Forward a recommendation to approve the proposed amendments if they accurately represent ideas previously discussed. 12. DISCUSSION RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY CODE VARIABLE SETBACKS AND AMENDMENTS RECOMMENDATION Forward a recommendation to approve the proposed amendments if they accurately represent ideas previously discussed. 13. DISCUSSION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POPULATION PROJECTIONS This is a first attempt to identify growth patterns in Farmington through the year 2000. Staff would appreciate comments. 14. DISCUSSION WORKSHOP FOR PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS Chairman Hanson wondered if any members are interested in the above workshop if the City Council would authorize such an expenditure. e Charles Tooker Planner AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR JUNE 13, 1989 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. 2. APPROVE MINUTES MAY 9, 1989 3. PUBLIC HEARING 7:00 P.M. Conditional Use Request White Funeral Home 4. PUBLIC HEARING 7:10 P.M. Conditional Use Request General Services Department 5. PUBLIC HEARING 7:20 P.M. Variance Request Timothy and Cynthia Boles 6. PUBLIC HEARING 7:30 P.M. Conditional Use Request Iris Briesacher 7. PUBLIC HEARING 7:30 P.M. Conditional Use and Variance EMC Development 8. DISCUSSION REZONING BLOCK 18 FROM B -3 TO R -3 9. PUBLIC HEARING 7:50 P.M. Variance for Neighborhood Sign 10. DISCUSSION DAKOTA COUNTY ESTATES PUD HIGH DENSITY 11. DISCUSSION RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO CITY CODE SIGNS 12. DISCUSSION RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO CITY CODE VARIABLE SETBACKS AND AMENDMENTS 13. DISCUSSION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POPULATION PROJECTIONS 14. DISCUSSION WORKSHOP FOR PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS